Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Ordered To Turn Over Source Code
consonant writes "A Delaware District Court judge has ordered Facebook to turn over ALL its source code to Leader Technologies, who allege patent infringements by Facebook. The patent in question appears to be for 'associating a piece of data with multiple categories.'
Additionally, while the judge in question deems it fine to let Leader Technologies look at Facebook's source (for a patent, no less!) in its entirety for a single feature, it would be 'overboard to ask a patent holder to disclose all of their products that practice any claim of the patent-in-suit.'"
If we're getting to the point where people are winning cases because they've effectively patented a design pattern, then we're all in trouble.
I mean, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" -- sounds like every relational database schema on the planet to me.
Facebook should hire some of Diebold's lawyers. They're really good at keeping source private.
Anyone wanna take bets on how long until Leader Technologies comes out with their own social networking site that looks very similar to Facebook, and gets sued for having some technology that infringes on a Facebook patent?
But seriously, shouldn't the court be trying to determine infringement, rather than letting the plaintiff view every piece of code Facebook has written? That's almost like saying "Microsoft infringed on 'using a scroll bar'; let Red Hat view all of the source for Windows so Red Hat can make sure it's not infringing." - if Windows were the only product Microsoft had. It's a crazy statement to make. In industrial terms, it sounds even worse: "Caterpillar might be infringing on a patent for 'method of transporting hydraulic fluid'; give Mitsubishi all of their blueprints for every one of their products so they can make sure it's not infringing".
If you didn't catch it, did you notice the 'obviousness' factor in those examples? Associating data into multiple categories seems pretty obvious, as databases have been doing just that for a long time.
"associating a piece of data with multiple categories"?
Are you kidding me?! So when I create a database table that allows me associate a record with multiple categories I'm infringing on this patent? Surely this isn't the whole story... could someone smarter than me fill me in please?
I am going to go patent taking a wiz in the morning. Apparently prior art doesn't mean anything.
TFA goes on to state:
So it isn't quite as outrageous as TFS makes it appear.
Caveat Utilitor
I've got both hands in the air.
That will happen just as soon as the "right thing" becomes highly profitable for those doing the bribing.
So, never.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
A computer-implemented network based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user access the data from the second context.
While we're on a reform kick in this country maybe we could undertake patent reform.
Think of all the corporate money that is being thrown at killing healthcare reform in all it's different guises...
and then multiply it by 200.
That, my friend, is the reason it isn't happening. Find ways to reduce the corporate influence and money in these fights first and then there is a chance.
Here
Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat
After reading through the '761 patent, any operating system which initiates a user working-space at login, e.g., a shell, will fall under the main claim of this patent.
I do not understand why Facebook's legal team has not been able to invalidate this patent via the presentation of prior art.
This patent should have never been issued and should not be defensible.
-Todd
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
If this is part of Discovery, then the requirement to turn over the code should be to the plaintiff's attorneys, not to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff doesn't actually get to see it themselves.
At least, that's how it worked in SCO vs IBM.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent. The patent mentions nothing of the sort. The patent seems to be about maintaining metadata across multiple application contexts and updating the context appropriately. It seems pretty wishy-washy, and I think it is too broad for a patent. But it's nothing like the mirage that has got everyone here foaming at the mouth. It's NOT a patent for associating a piece of data with multiple categories. It's more like a patent for a web application API framework, if I understand the gobbledy gook at all...
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Total health care spending is 17.6% of GDP. Nowhere near 200 times as much money could be involved in patents. :-)
Did ANYONE even read the patent? I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent.
It's a software patent, and therfor, to all of us not living in the United States, laughable.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That's an insane patent to have been granted. The fact that the patent holder is asserting that Facebook is infringing it without having seen their source code is extremely telling - the patent holder appears well aware that the patent (which should never have been granted) is so broad as to cover functionality rather than implementation and therefore anyone who appears to be doing what the patent covers is almost certainly infringing it.
It's as is the patent office granted someone a patent on cracking nuts as opposed to a specific nutcracker design, and the lucky patent holder would then be in a position to go after anyone selling shelled nuts on the grounds that they must have shelled them, ergo they must have violated their patent. Of course nuts, unlike software claims decribed in obfusctated legalese, are easy to understand. I'm 100% positive one could describe assigning a value to a variable in such a complex way, accounting for all possible implenentations, semantics, etc, etc, that some moron at the patent office would think it sounded like a highly technical and specific discovery and no-doubt patent worthy. I think I'll go apply for a patent of comments right now ("in the 42nd embodiment, a source code file, stored in EBDIC format on a USB storage device, embeds self-descriptive components, that will be automatically stripped by the FORmula TRANslation language lexical analyzer, ...").
Given how complex software is, and how difficult it is for lay people to understand it, and given that the patent office in granting things like this make it obvious that they do not have software experts examining these patents, it seems that the whole notion of software patents needs to be reexamined. They are really doing more harm than good, and the intent of patents to encourage innovation is being subverted rather than helped by software patents. The patent office doesn't seem to understand the process of software design/development at all.
NO! In fact, the patent itself specifically cites a one-to-many relationship as already being known. The attempt at claiming coverage of a one-to-many appears to come only from the incompetent who wrote the summary.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Absolutely! The laws serve no other purpose than to allow multinational corporations to bully... uhh... other... multinational corporations?
No, it allows more established corporations (and patent trolls) with large patent portfolios to prevent competition from young upstarts. Megacorps don't often go after other megacorps because it would end up as mutually assured destruction. They just cross-license their portfolios.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Where I can ignore the insane US patent system.
Seriously, someone needs to explain the process of object-oriented
domain modelling, analysis, and design to the USPTO, and explain
how virtually every outcome of such a process is "obvious to a qualified
practitioner in the field." These patents on every "complicated-seeming"
computer system that uses basic symbolic modelling of a domain and
implements a few obvious methods on the objects, are ridiculous
beyond belief, and one can take no position on these patents
except to studiously ignore them.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
"Megacorps don't often go after other megacorps because it would end up as mutually assured destruction"
;) .. assuming you find IP law entertaining, (not that i'm implying IP law isn't entertaining ;) ... hmm.. this disclaimer could be made recursive.
Its true they use patents more like negotiation chess pieces in some kind of tactical battle, but sometimes big companies do go after others big companies simply to achieve some tactical advantage. For example using the law as a delaying tactic against their opponent or to force them to give up some other patent rights as a negotiated compromise. Sadly its all tactical moves at their scale. It often has very little to do with engineering for them. They are more interested in its strategic value against opponents.
By anyway, this patent needs to die now. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ay99AAAAEBAJ&dq=7139761)
Its totally insane. In a long winded way as far as I can tell, its trying to say associating a piece of data with another piece of data. What like for example, associating a persons name with their postal address and then associating that postal address with their data of birth. etc.. etc.. etc.. Its what computers have been setup to do for decades!, yet this patent troll is trying to claim its their idea and Facebook should pay them!... yeah right, and how long after they go after Facebook, will it take them to then go after everyone else who uses a computer. I mean, FFS allowing patents like this makes a total mockery of the whole patent system.
[Disclaimer] I'm not a patent lawyer and these IP law comments are for entertainment purposes only
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
First, the problem that they're attempting to address with this patent: when you create a document or receive an email, it's up to you to categorize that document or email by whatever context (category/job fuction/etc) is appropriate...like sales or engineering. Usually this is done by creating categorized folders to stick the files or emails or whatever into.
Their solution: When you're working on something on your computer (using their technology), you're doing so within a certain context. For example you might be working on Sales, Marketing, or Software Developement, etc. So if your current working context is Marketing, everything you create while in that context is automatically associated with Marketing. If you send someone an email, it's automatically tagged as related to Marketing, so there is no need for you or the recipient to stuff it into a Marketing folder for filing. When you switch contexts from Marketing to Sales, all the content you create is then tagged as Sales, so once again, there is no need for the user to organize their stuff.
It sounds like their idea also provides for things to be associated with multiple contexts, and workspaces can be created that cover multiple contexts, so things get tagged accordingly. Also, it allows for manual tagging.
I can't really think of how this applies to Facebook...and Leader Technologies doesn't appear to have an active product that does any of this. What do you guys think about my interpretation?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.